----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN BISSELL" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:43 AM
Subject: Re: More on GM and ethics


John said, in part (snip)
>
>If some harm resulted to a species or community because of GM usage, then
>it would be morally wrong in some way to push GM products. Why? because
>there are certain moral norms in our human world which make some acts
>morally wrong. Putting human genes into cows to produce oxytoxcin for the
>purposes of commercial sales to impotent people may be morally wrong
>because
>of the possible harm that this would do to the cows.
>

Steven here. Again, I think this is circular. '*If* some thing causes harm,
*then* it is wrong.' OK, but what harm is shown? To organic farmers? *If*
so, *what*? Is there a genetic standard for organic farming I'm unaware of?
An act *may* be wrong because of *possible* harm? Doesn't sound like a very
good argument to me.

Steven

Steven, think about consequences on not considering any harm!. If the
consequences of not considering any harm are slight, then I guess the
standard must be very high for organic farming. I am suggesting that
something is morally wrong, but cannot be reversed once it is enacted. Data
gaps exist for GM crops, thus it is impossible to determine which
irreversible adverse effects are in high probability going to happen. Thus
we need to consider that prior to unleashing whacked out plants into the
environment containing their own pesticides.

This is logic, and the thinking about having consequences. Some consequences
cannot be reversed, and these consequences are far reaching. I think  GM is
one of those technologies which is proving to be irreversible, at least so
far in the US. I hope in the US where it is so common is that it is not
irreversible.

I actually think it is pointless to argue right or wrong with respect to GM
at this point except for illustration purposes. What I am saying is that
something may be morally wrong because if it is irreversible, in terms of
adverse effects, then if is unreasonable, then it is a 'categorical' wrong,
rather than hypothetically wrong.

Adverse effects of certain technologies, when they are unreasonable, often
cannot be reversed. The research indicates that the adverse effects of GM
crops are significant enough, and appear to be irreversible (eg. Giant
Chinook which were destroyed by a biotech firm in New Zealand for fear of
eradicating other salmon of the same species). Several GM firms have made
the ethical decision to remove their experiments based on the 'irreversible'
nature of some GM products.

The problem now is that even though some GM products have been removed from
commercial useage, there are still many products which are now demonstrating
irreversible adverse effects.

chao

johnF